1963 (12) TMI 33 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 25F(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Legality of the refusal by the appropriate Government to refer the industrial dispute to the Tribunal under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. Whether Section 25F(c) constitutes a condition precedent for valid retrenchment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 25F(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The principal point of law in this appeal concerns the construction of Section 25F(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The appellants argued that Section 25F(c) is mandatory and constitutes a condition precedent for valid retrenchment, similar to Sections 25F(a) and (b). They contended that the negative form of the provision and the use of the word "until" indicate that the conditions must be satisfied before retrenchment can be validly effected. However, the Court held that Section 25F(c) cannot receive the same construction as Sections 25F(a) and (b). The latter part of Section 25F(a) allows retrenchment on paying wages in lieu of notice, implying that notice under Section 25F(c) can be served after retrenchment. Therefore, Section 25F(c) is not a condition precedent but a condition subsequent, intended to inform the appropriate Government about the retrenchment.

2. Legality of the refusal by the appropriate Government to refer the industrial dispute to the Tribunal under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
The appellants challenged the refusal of the appropriate Government to refer the dispute to the Tribunal under Section 12(5) of the Act. They argued that the Government considered the merits of the dispute, which was beyond its jurisdiction. The Court rejected this argument, stating that when the appropriate Government considers whether to make a reference under Section 12(5), it acts under Section 10(1) of the Act, which confers discretion to refer or not to refer the dispute for industrial adjudication. The Government can consider prima facie the merits of the dispute and other relevant considerations. The Court held that a prima facie examination of the merits is not foreign to the enquiry, and the Government did not exceed its jurisdiction.

3. Whether Section 25F(c) constitutes a condition precedent for valid retrenchment:
The appellants argued that the failure to comply with Section 25F(c) by not serving notice on the appropriate Government before retrenchment introduced an infirmity in the order of retrenchment. The Court noted that the Rules framed by the Government treat the notice under Section 25F(c) as a condition subsequent, not a condition precedent. Rule 80 of the Rules indicates that notice can be served within seven days of retrenchment. The Court held that Section 25F(c) is not intended to protect the interests of the workman but to inform the Government about retrenchment. Therefore, it does not justify making it a condition precedent like Sections 25F(a) and (b).

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the Court held that Section 25F(c) does not constitute a condition precedent for valid retrenchment. The appropriate Government's refusal to refer the dispute to the Tribunal was not illegal, and the Government can consider prima facie the merits of the dispute when deciding whether to make a reference. The Court emphasized that the requirement of Section 25F(c) is to inform the Government about retrenchment, not to protect the workman's interests.